इंटरनेट मानक

Disclosure to Promote the Right To Information

Whereas the Parliament of India has set out to provide a practical regime of right to
information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities,
in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority,
and whereas the attached publication of the Bureau of Indian Standards is of particular interest
to the public, particularly disadvantaged communities and those engaged in the pursuit of
education and knowledge, the attached public safety standard is made available to promote the
timely dissemination of this information in an accurate manner to the public.

“जान1 का अ+धकार, जी1 का अ+धकार” “प0रा1 को छोड न' 5 तरफ”

Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan Jawaharlal Nehru
“The Right to Information, The Right to Live” “Step Out From the Old to the New”

IS 7894 (1975): Code of practice for stability analysis of

earth dams [WRD 9: Dams and Spillways]

“!ान $ एक न' भारत का +नम-ण”

Satyanarayan Gangaram Pitroda
“Invent a New India Using Knowledge”

“!ान एक ऐसा खजाना > जो कभी च0राया नहB जा सकता ह”

है”
ह
Bhartṛhari—Nītiśatakam
“Knowledge is such a treasure which cannot be stolen”
 2-f+
IS 7894 - 1975
( Reaffirmed 2002 )
Indian Standard
CODE OF PRACTICE FOR
STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EARTH DAMS
( Fourth Reprint JULY 1998 )
( Incorporating Amendment No. 1 )

UDC 627.824 : 624.131.537

0 Copyright 1383
BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS
MANAK BHAVAN, 9 BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI 110002

Gr 8 June 1976
 IS 7894 - 1975

Indian Standard
CODE OF PRACTICE FOR
STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EARTH DAMS

Dam Sections ( Non-overflow ) Sectional Committee, BDC 53

Chairman Iprplurntins
SHRII. P. KAPLA Irrigation De artment, Government of Punjab,
Chandigar g

MImbrrz
DR M. c. CHATURVBDI Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi
CHISP EN~INBI~R
( MID ) Public Works Department, Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad
SUPERXNTBNDIN~ ENOINEER,
CD0 ( Aftcmots)
Dkrroa (EBDD ) Central Water Commission, New Delhi
DEPUTYDIRXZOR( ERDD ) ( AItem& )
DR K. T. SUNDARARAJA IYEN~AR Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
SHRI P. J. J~ot~s Associated Cement Companies Ltd, Bombz.y
SHRI M. R. VINAYAKA(Alternate )
SHIU K. V. KOCHANIYAN Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum
SHRI Y. K. MEHTA Concrete Association of India, Bombay
SHRIJ. F. MILITRY Public Works Department, Government of Gujarat,
Gandhinagar
DR B. PANT Central Water and Power Research Station, Pune
SHRI A. S. KHOT ( Alkmah )
SHRIE. C. SALDANHA Irrigation and Power Department, Government of
Maharashtra, Bombay
SHRI V. P. SHIMPI( Alfcmatc )
SEW D. M. SAVUR Hindustan Construction Co Ltd, Bombay
SHRI V. B. DESAI ( Altemtc )
SECRETARY Central Board of Irrigation and Power, New Delhi
DEPUTYSECRETARY ( 1.0. ) ( Altmate )
SRRIJ. S. SINQHOTA Beas Designs Organization, Nangal Township
SHRIJ. S. ATWAL( AItema:e )
S-I D. AJITHASIMHA, Diictor General, Big ( fi-oj%io Member )
Director ( ‘Civ Engg )

Semtaty
SHIU K. K. SHAIWA
Assistant Director ( Civ Engg ), BlS

(ConrifJuedon pug@2 )

@ Copyrighf 1983
BUREAU QF INDIAN STANDARDS
This publication is proteukY unucr the hdkzn mC@Wg/tt Acf (XIV of 1957 ) and
reproduction in whole or in part by any means except with written permission of the
publisher shallbe deemed to be an infringementof copyright under the said Act.
IS I 7994 - 1975

Earth and Rockfill Dams Subcommittee, BDC 53 : 2

C0nU?H Rcpresenrillg
Srur S. N. Guau RAU Central Water Commission, New Deihi

DEPUTY DIRECTOR( ERDD ) ( Alferauia to

Shri S. N. Guru Rau )
SERI B. S. BHALLA
Snrtx M. L. KAUSHAL( Alreraarc)
DR M, C. CHATURVEDI
&RX K. R. DATYE
Srrax A. N. HARKAUU
SHRI J. F. MISERY
SHRI T. K. NATARAJAN
SHRI El C. SALDANHA
SHRI v. -P. SntVpr ( AlkrMlr )
Beas Designs Organization, Nangal Township
Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi
In personal capacity (No. 2 Rahem Mintion, Colaba
Cauccway, Bombay 40000 I )
Irrigation Department, Government of Uttar
Pradesh, Lucknow
Public Works Department, Govermment of Guiarat,
Gandhiiagar
Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi
Irrigation and Power Department, Government of
Maharashtra, Bombay

2
 IS 7894- $975

Indian Standard
CODE OF PRACTICE FOR
STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EARTH DAMS

0. FOREWORD
0.1This Indian Standard was adopted by the Indian Standards Institution
on 10 December 1975, after the draft finalized by the Dam Sections
( Non-overflow ) Sectional Committee had been approved by the Civil
Engineering Division Council.

0.2 Earth embankments are widely used for roads, railways, river training
works, canal embankments, dams, etc. The economy and safety of these
works can be accomplished by adopting proper methods of design, construc-
tion and maintenance. The failure of these structures is likely to result in
loss of life and damages to property. It may also result in damage and/or
washout of the structure fully or partially.

0.3 The most important cause of failure is sliding. It may occur slowly or
suddenly and with or without forewarning. Such a failure causes a portion
of the earth fill to slide downwards an outwards with respect to theremain-
ing part generally along a well-define$ slide surface. ,4t the time of the
.,,failure the average-shearing stress exceeds the average shearing resistance
I along the sliding surface. It is, therefore, necessary that the designer takes
special care to eliminate the possibility of such a failure.

0.4 In the design of earth dam both safety and economy call for thorough
soil studies of the foundation and of the materials of construction, combined
with stability computations. The methods of stability -analysis currently in
use have been developed largely as a result of studies of actual slides on old
dams. The stability computations serve as a basis either for the redesign
of slope of an existing structure or for deciding the slope of a new structure
in accordance with the specified safety requirement. Because of wide
variations in the properties of subsoil formation and the heterogeneity of
soils available for construction of earth dam, the design of an earth dam
constitutes a problem that calls for individual treatment. Additional studies
are required in complex situations such as earth dams founded on marshy
soils, marine clays and materials susceptible to liquifaction.

0.5 Effective stress method of analysis is recommended in this code.

03 For the purpose. of this standard it is presumed that the requirements

given below have been determined before carrying out the stability analysis

3
l8 I 7894 - 197s

of the proposed dam section:

zoning pattern of the dam for the most economical utilization of
the available material in the appropriate zones preceded by a
thorough soil exploration for strength, permeability, etc.
Design shear strength parameters and densities for the various
zones in the section.
The geological features and strength parameters of the foundation
material that have a bearing on the stability of the embankment.
Tentative section of the dam required for examining stability on
the basis of judgement and past experience for more or less
similar conditions.
Top level of dam, maximum water level ( MWL ), full reservoir
level ( FRL ), low water level ( LWL ) that is level beyond
which lake will not be depleted and tail water level ( TWL )
finalized on the basis of project requirements.

1. SCOPE

1.1 This standard covers the procedure for analysing the stability of earth
dam slopes for different conditions of loading to which the dam is expected
to be~subjected during its life time. The -analysis covers types of shear test
results to be used, conditions requiring analysis, computation of pore
pressures, methods of analysis and considerations for earthquake forces.
1.2 This standard does not cover special cases such as transition between,
earth dam and masonry and concrete dam.
1.3 This standard does not cover stability analysis of rockfill dams.

2. TERMINOLOGY

2.0 For the purpose of this standard. the following definitions shall apply.
2.1 Actuating or Driving Force - The force which tends to cause move-
ment or sliding of the soil mass in the dam.
2.2 Critical Surface - The possible failure surface which gives the lowest
value of factor of safety.
2.3 Effective Stress Method - A method of analysis in which thepore
pressures that exist on the potential failure surface within the dam
and the foundation are estimated and allowed for separately from normal
stress, The shear strength of soils are also determined in terms of effective
strea.

4
 IS : 7894 - 1975

2.4’ Embankment Dam - It includes earth dams and earth core rock-
fill dams.
2.5 Factor of Safetv. - For circular arc analvsis. it is the ratio of
stabilizing force to actuating force. For sliding &edge analysis, it is the
ratio of design shear strength to developed shear strength.
2.6 Failure Surface -The plane or surface along which a part of the dam
section tends to move or slide.
2.7 Phreatic Line -The upper flow line, or free surface of seepage,
along which the pressure in the soil water is equal to the atmospheric
pressure.
2.8 Stabilizing or Resisting Force -The force which opposes move-
ment or sliding of soil mass in the dam.
2.9 Steady Seepage- This corresponds to a condition in which steady
seepage flow has been established through the dam section for any
reservoir level.
2.10 Sudden Drawdown -That rate of lowering of’ reservoir water
level which does not allow full dissipation of pore pressure simultaneously
with the lowering of reservoir level.
2.11 Total Stress Method -A method of analysis in which total stresses,
without allowance for pore water pressures, are taken into account.
The shear strength of the soils adopted in analysis are also determined
in terms of total stresses without pore pressure measurements. In this
procedure it is assumed that the pore pressures which will develop in
the sample during the laboratory test will be equal to those which would
develop in the dam at the time of failure. In other words the shear strength
is assumed to include the influence of the pore pressure during loading as
well as shearing.
2.12 Trial Sliding Mass -The portion of the dam and foundation
( if any) lying above the assumed failure surface.

3. PRINCIPLES

3.1 Whenever difference of levels exists within a continuous soil mass,

gravitational forces tend to cause the movement from the higher elevation
to the lower one. Another force which tends to cause this movement is
the force due to seepage. Earthquakes also generate forces which tend to
cause movement. All these forces cause shearing stress throughout the soil
and a mass movement occurs unless the resisting forces on every possible
surface, plane or curved, are more than the actuating forces.
3.2 The shear strength at failure on any surface within an earth dam is
directly related to the normal stress on that surface and has the

5
IS : 7894 - 1975

relationship expressed by Coulomb’s equation:

S = C’ + .N’ tan +’
S=C’+(Jv- U)tan+’
where
S = shear strength of the failure surface,
C’ = cohesion intercept in terms of effective stress,
Jv = total normal stress acting on the failure surface,
u - pore water pressure acting on the failure surface,
Jv’= Jv - C[ = effective normal stress, and
4’ = angle of shearing resistance in terms of effective stress.

4. DESIGN SHEAR STRENGTH

4.1 All the shear test results for earth dam and foundation material adopt-
ed in the stability analysis should be those obtained from triaxial shear
testing as far as possible. The embankment shear strength shall be~obtained
by performing the tests on the proposed embankment material compacted
to dry density aimed at during the construction of dam. The foundation
strength shall be estimated after testing the undisturbed soil samples from
the foundation or from the results of in-situ tests. The shear testing shall
be done from zero to maximum normal stress expected in the dam.
4.1.1 Adequate number of representative samples of each type of soil to
bemused in the earth dam shall be tested for shear strength. The design
shear parameters for the materials comprising the dam shall be fixed at a
value such that 75 percent of the test results are above the design value.
The extreme or freak values shall, however, be rejected.
4.1.2 The foundation materials shall be classified in accordance with
IS : 1498-1970*. Adequate number of samples of each type of foundation
material shall be tested for shear strength. The design shear parameters
for each type shall be fixed so that at least 75 percent of the test results are
above the design value. The extreme or freak values shall, however, be
rejected.
4-1.3 The density values for the material shall be fixed at 75 percent
reliable value and the moisture content corresponding to that value shall
be adopted for calculations.
4.1.4 For the purpose of this standard, the various types of shear tests
performed under -different conditions of loading and drainage shall be
designated by letters Q, R and S as follows:
Q test = unconsolidated undrained test,
R test = consolidated undrained test, and
s test= consolidated drained test.
*Classificationand identificationofsoils for general engineeringpurposes(JW reoirion
).

6
 IS : 7894 - 1975

4.2 ‘Q Test -During this test, initial water content is kept constant.
Thus the change in the water content is not permitted either prior to or
during shear. For saturated soils as the drainage of water from the voids
does not take place, the applied normal load induces a balanced pore water
pressure and hence the shear strength is independent of the normal load and
envelope of the shear strength is a straight line parallel to the abscissa. For
partially saturated soil samples, however, there is a decrease in the volume
due to the compression of air or gas present in the voids and from the
increased solution of gas in the pore water under test pressure. The
strength envelopes for partially saturated soil have the curved portion in the
low stress range. For partially saturated soils, therefore, this curved portion
of the envelope should be used including the cohesion intercept when the
dam stresses are in this low range. Because the envelopes are the curved
lines, the strength relationship cannot be expressed conveniently in terms
of ‘ cohesion ’ and ‘ angle of internal friction ’ and hence approximation for
this condition is necessary. For the purpose of design, therefore, these
curved envelopes shall be replaced with a series of straight lines approxima-
tely parallel to the curved envelopes so that the cohesion intercept and
friction angle can be determined for variousnormal load ranges.

4.3 R Test
4.3.1 In this test the fully saturated soil sample is allowed to consolidate
under one set of normal stress condition and after allowing a proper degree
of consolidation it is subjected to shearing process during which the water
content is kept constant, that is, no drainage is allowed. Consolidation of
sample prior to-shearing dissipates the pore pressure due to load and only
the pore pressures due to shearing are present at the time of failure. The
results of this test, after deductingpore pressure in case of triaxial shear test
and without such deduction in case of direct box shear, can be considered
as effective stress parameters.
4.3.2 Results of these tests are valid only if full saturation of the soil
sample is achieved. For achieving complete saturation the usual method
of back pressure is considered satisfactory.

4.4 S Test -This test is performed by consolidating initially the soil

sample to the appropriate consolidation stresses and then shearing it very
slowly. The slow rate of shearing affords enough time for the pore water
to drain out of the voids in the soil mass under shearing stress. Therefore
during the process of shearing pore pressures do not get built up. This
means that the -effective normal stress on the soil sample during shear is
equal to the applied normal consolidation stress. In this test the value of
the parameter 4 ( angle of internal friction ) is greater than that obtained
from the same soil for R test, because the neutral stress is practically zero
and intergranular friction between the soil. particles acts in its full
magnitude.

7
 IS : 7894 - 1975

4.5 Choice of Type of Test

4.5.1 Q test approximates the behaviour of earth dams consisting of
impervious soils during and immediately after construction. It gives
relationship between shear strength and normal pressures in terms of total
stresses. This test is also applicable to impervious foundation layer in
which the consolidationrate is slow as compared to the fill placement rate,
In cases where the foundation soil exists in unsaturatedstate but is likely
to get saturated during construction, due to creation of partial pool or due
to any other reason, it is desirable to saturate the samples prior to triaxial
shear testing so as to simulate the site conditions and to obtain realistic
results. Similar testing is desired if the part of earth dam gets saturated
_ due to creation of partial pool during construction. These test results shall
be applicable to foundation and the portion of earth dam likely to get
saturated before application of further superimposed load due to raising of
earth dam. For other portion the testing shall be done for dam material
samples at compaction moisture content and for foundation samples at
natural moisture contents.
4.5.2 R test approximates the behaviour during the sudden drawd-own
of impervious zones and of impervious foundation layers that have consoli-
dated fully -by the time the reservoir comes into operation. The test results
are also used in analysing the upstream slope during a partial pool condi-
tion and downstream slope during steady seepage.
4.5.3 The results of S test are suitable for freely draining soils in whicl-
pore pressures do not develop.
4.6 Choice of Test Equipment
4.6.1 As far as possible triaxial tests shall be carried out for foundation
and embankment materials.
4.6.2 Direct shear test can be used in respect of S test for freely draining
material.
4.7 Use of Ultimate and Peak Shear Strength Values -Normally
the peak shear strength values shall be used, however, where the ultimate
shear strength shows a drop of more than 20 percent over the peak shear
strength, the ultimate shear strength values shall be used.
/
5. DESIGN CONDITIONS OF ANALYSIS AND ALLOWANCE FOR
PORE PRESSURE
5.1 An earth dam shall be safe and stable during all phases of construc-
tion and operation of the reservoir. Hence the analysis shall be done
for the most critical combination of external forces which are likely to
occur in practice. The following conditions are usually critical for the
stability of an earth dam:
a) Case I - Construction condition with ,or without partial pool
( for upstream and downstream slopes ),

8
 IS : 7894 - 1975

b) Case lZ- Reservoir partial pool ( for upstream slope ),

C) Case ZZZ- Sudden drawdown ( for upstream slope),

d) Case ZV- Steady seepage ( for downstream slope ),
e) Case V - Steady seepage with sustained rainfall ( for downstream
slope ) ( where annual rainfall is 200 cm or more ), and
f) Case VZ- Earthquake condition ( for upstream and downstream
slopes ).
5.1 .I The various design conditions of analysis for upstream and down-
stream slope along with the minimum values of factors of safety to be
aimed at and use of type of shear strength for each condition of analysis
are given in Appendix A.

5.2 Case I - Construction Condition With or Without Partial Pool

( for Upstream and Downstream Slopes )
5.2.1 This represents a situation when the structure is just constructed.
In this condition the pore pressures developed as a result of dam material
compression due to the overlying fill are not dissipated or are only partly
dissipated. If the rate of raising of dam is less than about 15 metres per
year, this condition may not become critical as the residual pore pressure
in the dam and foundation arc expected to be negligible except in highly
clayey foundation with high water table, for example, marshy areas.
5.2.2 Construction pore pressures may exceed the pore pressures likely
“to be developed due to the seepage from the reservoir and consequently
may control the design of darn. The magnitude and distribution of these
pore pressures depend primarily on the construction water content in
embankment and natural water content in the foundation, the properties
of the soil, rate of raising, the height of dam and the rate at which
dissipation may occur due to internal drainage.
5.2.3 While examining the stability by effective stress method, the pore
pressure shall be accounted for by Hilf’s method as given in Appendix B.
For the portion of the assumed failure surface passing through the saturated
foundation or dam material, total stress analysis using results of undrained
triaxial tests may be used. Direct shear test may also be used where other
tests are not available. For casing material with large particle size a bigger
box may be used. The effect of consolidation, if any, during construction
on the shear strength may be neglected.

5.2.4 Moist weights of zones shall be considered in working out resisting

and driving forces when the material included in the sliding mass is nor
likely to get saturated during construction due to the creation of partial
pool or due to any other reasons. In other cases where saturation is
expected, saturated weights shall be considered while working out driving
forces. Contribution of frictional force to the resisting force shall be taken

9
-IS : 7894 - 1975

as fnil’lin case of saturated and unconsolidated material, if total stre&’

analysis is used.

5.2.5 Where conditions of initial filling of reservoir, without dissipation

of pore pressures, develop the analysis as given for partial pool in 5.3 shall
apply.

5.3 Case II - Reservoir Partial Pool ( for Upstream Slope )

5.3.1 This condition corresponds to the initial partial pool filling in

which it is assumed that a condition of steady seepage has developed at
the intermediate stages. The stability of upstream slope shall be investi-
gated for various reservoir levels on upstream, usually levels corresponding
to one-third to two-thirds height of head of water to be stored at full
reservoir level and minimum value of factor of safety worked out. The
analysis should account for reduction, if any, in the effective normal stresses
where the pore pressures developed during construction are not dissipated
before a partial pool condition can develop.

5.3.2 All the zones above phreatic line drawn for upstream water level
under consideration?should be considered as moist for working out resisting
and driving forces and zones below it should be taken with their submerged
weights for working out both resisting and driving forces.

5.3.3 Partial pool condition may not prove to be critical for all earth
dams and hence analysis for this condition needs to be carried out onlv in
cases where it is considered necessary. This condition is likely to be critical
in cases of high dams where the range of drawdown is small as compared
to the height of dam.

5.4 Case III - Sudden Drawdown ( for Upstream Slope )

5.4.1 Earth dams may get saturated due to prolonged higher reservoir
levels. Sudden drawdown condition corresponds to the subsequent lower-
ing of reservoir level rate faster than pore water can dissipate. This induces
unbalanced seepage forces and excess pore water pressures. This condition
becomes critical ‘if the materials of the upstream portion of the dam are
not freely draining.

5.4.2 Depending upon the value of the coefficient of permeability of the

upstream shell material, the pore pressures in the shell material in the
drawdown range shall be allowed arbitrarily in the analysis as follows:
a) Full pore pressures shall be considered if the coefficient of
permeability is less than 10e4 cm/s.

b) No pore pressures shall be considered if the coefficient of perrne-

ability is greater than 10m2 cm/s.

10
 IS : 7894 - 1975

cl A linear variation from full pore pressures to zero pore pressures

shall be considered for the coefficients of permeability lying
between 10-h cm/s to low2 cm/s.
The above values of pore pressures are based on a drawdown rate
of 3 m/month.
5.4.2.1 For the core material which is generally impervious full pore
pressures shall be allowed for the core zone lying in the drawdown range.
If a zone of random material with the properties intermediate between
core and the shell material is provided in between upstream shell and
core of the dam, the pore pressures for sudden drawdown condition shall
be allowed for in the same way as for the core.
5.4.3 The drawdown pore pressure can be determined in accordance
with the method given by A. W. Bishop using the formula:
U = yW [ h, + h, ( 1 - n) - h ] ( see-Fig. 1)
where
u = drawdown pore pressure at any point within the core;
yW = density of water;
h, = height of core material at the point;
h, = height of shell material at the point;
n = specific porosity of shell material, that is, volume of
water draining out from the shell per unit volume; and
h = drop in the head under steady seepage condition at the
point.
5.4.4 The drawdown pore pressures may also be determined by drawing
flow nets.
CENTRE OF ASSUMED
FAILURE SURFACE

PHREATIC
LINE
7

lFAILURE SURFACE ~EOUIPOTENTIAL LINE

FIG. 1 CRITERION FOR DRAWDOWN PORE PRESSURESIN

COMPRESSIBLECORE

11
IS ! 71194 - 1975

5.4.5 The weights of material to be considered for computing driving and

resisting forces shall be as given below:

a) <ones above phreatic line - All the zones above phreatic line shall
be considered as moist for computing both the driving and
resisting forces.
b) <ones in the drawdown range - For computing driving forces the
core material and non-free-draining material shall be considered
as saturated and freely draining material shall be considered as
moist. For computing resisting forces the pore pressures shall
be adopted as for any of the methods indicated in 5.4.2, 5.4.3
and 5.4.4.
c) <ones below drawdown level - All zones including foundation zone
below the drawdown level shall be considered as buoyant for
computing both the driving and resisting forces.

5.4.6 The analysis for upstream slope shall be done for the condition of
1 F
the drawaown nom:
a) Full reservoir level ( FRL ) in case of earth dams with gated
spillways, and
b) A level corresponding to mid-level between full reservoir level
( FRL ) and maximum water level ( MWL) to lowest water
level ( LWL ) in case of earth dams with ungated spillways.
5.4.7 For downstream slope the analysis shall be carried out for the
condition of drawdown from maximum tail water level (-Max TWL j to
mmimum tail water level ( Min TWL ).

5.5 Case IV - Steady Seepage ( for Downstream Slope )

5.5.1 The condition of steady seepage is developed when the water
level is maintained at a constant level for sufficiently long time and the
seepage lines arc cstablishcd in the earth dam section. This condition is
likely to be critical for the downstream slope. In the analysis, existence of
tail water and drawdown effects, if any, shall also be taken into account
( see also 5.4.7 ). The stability of downstream slope shall be examined by
effective stress method. Steady seepage from level in the reservoir which
is sustained for a period of one month should be taken as critical.
5.5.2 The stability analysis of the earth dam shall be done assuming
that the dam is fully saturated below phreatic line. Allowance for pore
pressure in the analysis shall bc made in terms of the buoyancy of the
material or by drawing flow nets. The core material lying below the
phreatic lint ( and ahovc the tail water level, if any ) shall be considered as
saturated for calculating the driving forces and buoyant for resisting forces.
All the zones of the dam and foundation lying below the tail water level, if
any, shall be considered as buoyant for calculating the driving and resisting

12
 IS : 7894 - 1975

forces. - A part of upstream pervious shell material below the phreatic

line, if any, included in trial slidin, v mass shall be considered as saturated
for calculating the driving and buoyant for resisting forces. All zones lying
above the phreatic line shall be considered as moist for calculating both
the driving and resisting forces.
5.5.3 In case of homogeneous dams with no internal drainage the
phreatic line will emerge on downstream side in the dam above the ground
surface. In such a case the portion of the dam below the phreatic line
shall be considered as saturated for calculating driving forces and buoyant
for resisting forces.

5.6 Case V - Steady Seepage with Sustained Rainfall ( for Down-

stream Slope )
5.6.1 Where there is a possibility of sustained rainfall, the stability of
the downstream slope shall be analysed on arbitrary assumption that a
partial saturation of shell material due to rainfall takes place. Accordingly
for this condition of analysis, the shell and other material lying above the
phreatic line shall be considered as moist for calculating driving forces and
buoyant for resisting forces. All the other assumptions regarding allowance
for pore pressure shall be in accordance with 5.5.2.

5.6.2 The saturation for the downstream shell material shall be assumed
as under:
a) Fifty percent if the coefficient of permeability is lo-4 cm/s or less,
b) Zero percent if the coefficient of permeability is 10-Z cm/s or
more, and
c) Percentage shall vary linearly from fifty to zero for the coefficients
of permeability lying between 10M4 cm/s and 10-Z cm/s.

5.7 Case VI - Earthquake Condition ( for Upstream and Down-

stream Slopes ) - Upstream and downstream slopes shall be analvsed
for earthquake conditions in accordance with the provisions contained in
IS : 1893-1975*.

6. CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PHREATIC LINE

6.1 Methods for determining the phreatic line are available in any standard
book on soil mechanics. It is, however, not necessary to determine accu-
rately the phreatic line for stability analysis. The approximate method
given in 6.2 is good enough for the purpose.

6.2 Approximate Method for Determining Phreatic Line - The

various assumptions involved in the theory of Seepage analysis are seldom

*Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures \ third revision),

13
IS : 7894 - 1975

realized in practice. Hence an approximate method for drawing the phre-

atic line for the discharge face of the core may be adopted. Instead of
drawing a basic prarabola, the phreatic line shall be obtained by joining
the entrance point and breakout point on the discharge face. The break-
out point is located on discharge face at a height of h/2 from base of the
dam, h being the head on upstream above. the impervious base. A short
transition curve may be introduced at the entrance.

7. METHODS OF ANALYSIS

7.1 The methods of analysing the slope stability depending upon the pro-
file of failure surface are:
a) Circular arc method, and
b) Sliding wedge method.

7-2 Circular Arc Method

7.2.1 In this method of analysis the surface of rupture is assumed as
cylindrical or in the cross section by an arc of a circle. This method, also
known as Swedish or Slip Circle method, is generally applicable for analy-
sing slopes of homogenous earth dams and dams resting on thick deposits of
fine grained materials.
7.2.2 For this method, assumptions given at 7.2.2.1 to 7.2.2.4 shall be
made.
7.2.2.1 No shearing stresses act across the plane of the cross section
and the analysis is treated as two dimensional.
7.2.2.2 The section of the dam analysed is of unit thickness.
7.2.2.3 The sliding mass is divided into a convenient number of slices
and each slice is assumed to act independently of its adjoining slices and
the forces acting on the sides of a slice have no influence on the shear
resistance which may develop on the bottom of the slice.
7.2.2.4 The shear strength of the various zones along the potential
failure surface is mobilized simultaneously.
7.2.3 Detailed procedure of analysis shall be as given in Appendix C.

7.3 SEding Wedge Method

7.3.1 The sliding wedge method of analysis is generally applicable in the
circumstances where it appears that the failure surface may be best
approximated by series of planes rather than a smooth continuous curve as
for the method of circular arc. This method is generally applicable under
the following two circumstances:
a) Where one or more horizontal layers of weak soil exist in the
upper part of the foundation, and

14
 IS t 7894 - 1975

b) Where the foundation consists of hard stratum through which

failure is not anticipated and dam resting on it has a core of fine-
grained soil with relatively large shells of dense granular
material.

7.3.2 In sliding wedge method of analysis the trial sliding mass is divided
into two or three segments, the top segment is called active wedge and
the bottom segment is called passive wedge. The middle wedge in case of
a three wedge system is called the central block. The resultant of the
forces acting on the active wedge and the passive wedge are first
determined. These resultants acting on the central block along with
other forces on the block shall give a closed polygon for stability. The
procedure for this analysis is given in Appendix D.

8. ANALYSIS FOR EARTHQUAKE FORCES

8.1 In regions of seismic activity stability calculations of the slope of a

dam should also include seismic forces because they reduce the margin of
safety or may even bring about the collapse of the structure. General
design approach for earthquake forces is given in IS : 1893-1975*. Where
the analysis is carried out by the circular arc or sliding wedge method,
total weight of the sliding mass considered for working out horizontal
seismic force shall be based on saturated unit weights of the zones below
the phreatic line ( see Fig. 2 ) and moist weigh’ts above it. If the zone
above the phreatic line is freely draining, drained weights shall be consi-
dered for that zone. Detailed procedure is given in Appendix E for circu-
lar arc method and in Appendix F for sliding wedge method.
’ 8.2 As stated in 5.4.1, the critical condition of analysis of upstream slope
for operating condition is the sudden drawdown. When the reservoir is
full the seepage pressure acting towards the downstream side increases the
resistance of upstream slope towards the sliding and as such, such a condi-
tion is not considered critical. However, this condition combined with
earthquake forces is considered critical as the stability of upstream slope
gets reduced and may lead to the failure of dam when the reservoir is full.
Similarly, the downstream slope of the dam shall be analysed for a condi-
tion of steady seepage combined with earthquake forces.

9. EVOLVING THE FINAL SECTION

9.1 In determining the stability of the proposed slope it is necessary to try

many different circles as one trial arc gives the value of factor of safety for
that arc only. The circle which yields the minimum value of factor of
safety is the most critical. Theoretically it is necessary to try an infinite
number of possible failure circles with different centres and radii before the

*Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures ( third revtiion).

15
IS : 7894 - 1975

CENTRE OF ASSUMED
/- FAILURE SURFACE

PHREATIC LINE
WATER
c_-~- LEVEL --

_ DIRECTION OF
EARTHQUAKE FORC

Te
Wl : Saturated unit weight of the material in the slice ( below phreatic line )
AH : Horizontal earthquake coefficient
I, : Tangential component of earthquake force ( W 1.cosa.AH )
Jv, : Normal component of earthquake force ( W 1.sina.AH )

FIG. 2 ANALYSESOF EARTHQUAKEFORCES

most critical one giving lowest accepted factor of safety may be located. In
practice, however, a limited number of slip circles, about 12 to 15, selected
on the basis of past experience arc considered sufficient for each condition
of analysis.
9.2 After trying about 12 to 15 failure circles, if the lowest value of factor
of safety is acceptable the profile of the section needs no changes and the
assumed profile shall be considered adequate from considerations of stabi-
lity. However, if-the value ofthe factor of safety obtained for the critical
failure arc is more than required, the section shall be modified by reducing
the berm widths and steepening the slopes. The above process shall be
repeated till tlxe profile of the section gives the required factor cf safety. If,
on the other hand, the value of factor of safety obtained during the process
of calculation for the failure surface is less than ,the minimum acceptable,
the same shall be increased to the required value by trials after carrying
o’lt necessary changes in the profile.

9.3 For the sake of simplicity and reducing the calculations, the various
materials, namely, riprap, internal filters, rock-toes, erc, falling within the
sliding mass shall be considered to have the same properties as those of
the respective zones within which they are located. This will not mate-
rially effect the value of factor of safety as these materials usually cover
only a small sectional area as compared tr> the areas of the zones in which

16
 IS: 7894-1975

they are located. However, if such materials cover appreciable cross-

sectional area, they shall be considered separately.

9.4 Stability analysis of the slopes shall be done for sections of dam for
different heights, the entire length being divided into suitable reaches. In
deciding the reaches, variations in foundations conditions shall also be taken
into account.

10. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

10.1All the results of stability analysis for each condition of analysis for the
final section evolved shall be presented on one drawing sheet only and shall
be called as master sheet. The various circles tried should be numbered
serially and shown on this sheet. The critical circle shall be marked
distinctly in colour. The design parameters ( densities and shear strength
values ) along with the design assumptions shall be shown on the drawing.
A table showing the values of factors of safety for various circles shall also
be shown.
10.2 If the topography of the ground across the axis of the dam, on which
dam will be resting, is very undulating the profile of the ground along the
transverse direction of dam axis shall be plotted and the proposed earth
\dam section shown on it. The analysis of this section shall then be carried
out. If the topography of the ground is fairly uniform and flat, the cross
section shall be drawn after considering the horizontal ground profile with
its elevation as that of a point along the axis of the dam.

17
 APPENDIX A
( Clause 5.1.1 )
I
MINIMUM DESIRED VALUES OF FACTORS OF SAFE’rY AND TYPE OF SHEAR
STRENGTH RECOMMENDED FOR VARIOUS LOADING CONDITIONS z
CCW Loading Condition of Dam Slope Mqst Pore Pressure Assumptions Type of Shear Minimum
NO. Likely to be Strength Desired
Critical Test to be Factor of
Adopted Sqfcry

I Construction condition with or Upstream and To be accounted for by Hilf’s QRt 1.0
without partial pool* downstream method
II Reservoir partial pool Upstream Weights of material in all zones R SJ l-3
above phreatic line to be taken
as moist and those below as
buoyant
G III Sudden drawdown:
a) Maximum head water to Upstream As given in 5.4.2 R S$ 1.3
minimum with tail water
at maximum
b) Maximum tail water to Downstream As given in 5.4.5 R S: 1.3
minimum with reservoir full
IV Steady seepage with reservoir Downstream As given in 5.5.2 R S: 1.5
full
V Steady seepage with sustained Downstream As given in 5.6.1 R S1 1.3
rainfall
VI Earthquake condition:
a) Steady seepage Downstream As given in case IV RSf 1 *oi
b) Reservoir full Upstream As given in case II R S$ 1 .og
NOTE - These factors of safety are applicable for the methods of analysis mentioned in this standard.
*Where the reservoir is likely to be filled immediately after completion of the dam, construction pore pressure would
not have dissipated and these should be taken into consideration.
tThis is to be adopted for failure plane passing through impervious foundation layer.
$S test may be adopted only in cases where the material is cohesionless and free draining.
#Values are according to IS : 1893-1975 ‘Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures ( third reuision )‘.
 IS : 7894 - 1975

APPENDIX B
( Clause 5.2.3 )
COMPUTATION OF PORE PRESSURES BY
j. W. HILF’S METHOD

B-l. ASSUMPTIONS

El.1 The following assumptions shall be made:

4 Onlv vertical embankment strain ( compression) takes place
during construction, there is no lateral bulging;
b) The relationship between embankment compression and effective
stress is known; ‘.

C>The pressures in the pore water and the air in the pores are
always equal and directly after compaction of the embankment
material they are equal to atmospheric pressure;
4 The decrease in the embankment volume at any given elevation
under the weight of the fill placed above is caused by compression
of the air in the voids and solution of the air in the pore water;
e) Boyles’s and Henry’s laws are valid for this compression and
solution; and
f > No dissipation of pore water pressures from drainage occurs
during construction.

B-2. FORMULA

B-2.1 Hilf’s formula for evaluating pore pressure is

u Pa. A
= v, + 0.02 VW- n

where
u = induced pore pressure in kg/ems;
P,, = absolute atmospheric pressure in kg/cm%;
A = embankment compression, in percent of original total
embankment volume;
V, = volume of free air in the voids of the soil directly after
compaction, in percent of original total embankment
volume; and
VW = volume of pore water, in percent of origrnal total embank-
ment volume.

19
* IS : 7894 - 1975

B-2.2 The numerical values for the initial air and water volume for w in
the formula may be estimated from laboratory compaction tests and from
previous experience with average embankment densities. The earth dam
compressibi1it.y may be derived from laboratory consolidation tests or from
the average of field measurements for similar dam materials.

B-2.3 The equation at B-2.1 may also be used to compute the theoretical
pore pressure at which all the air is forced into solution; that is, when the
dam becomes completely saturated. This state which occurs when the
compression of the specimen A becomes equal to the initial volume of air
in the voids V, is described by the equation:

[j - ‘aeva
0.02 VW
where the symbols are as described in B-2.1.

APPENDIX C
( Clause 7.2.3 )
PROCEDURE FOR ANALYSIS OF FORCES
BY CIRCULAR ARC METHOD

C-l. GENERAL
C-l.1 After deciding upon the tentative cross section of the proposed earth
dam as stated in 0.6 (d), a possible circular failure surface through the dam
and foundation (in case foundation is not firm and through which failure
is anticipated) shall be assumed. The trial sliding mass shall be divided
-into a number of vertical slices. The number of slices depends on the
width and profile of the sliding mass, number of various zones included
in the sliding mass and the accuracy desired. Usually 10 to 15 slices are
desirable. For zoned embankment and stratified foundations with different
properties, where an arc of the potential failure surface passes through more
than one type of material, the vertical ordinates of the slices for each zone
or part of the fcjundation shall be obtained by locating the slice at each
such dividing point. The slices, for convenience, may be of equal width
though it is not rigidly necessary to do SO. For this, trial surface computa-
tions are made of the shear force needed for equilibrium and the strength
forces available. The failure surface is shown in Fig. 3A. Forces acting
on a typical slice in the analysis of downstream slope for steady seepage
condition are shown in Fig. 3B.

C-2. ANALYSIS
C-2.1 The driving forces and resisting forces may be analysed by either of
the methods given at C-2.2 and C-2.3.

20
 IS D ‘1894 - 1975

CENTRE OF ASSUMED

A
FAILURE SURFACE

PHREATIC LINE ,,/SL,C

MAXIMUM POOL L

-
HARD, STRATUM AILURE
__.._ ..CE
SURFAl

3A EMBANKMENT SECTION SHOWING SLICES

RADIUS OF FAILURE
SURFACE

,TIC LINE
CORE MATEhAL
BELOW PHREATIC
LlKE----- N=Wcosa
1 :.W sin6

(=UNIT COHESIO

38 ANALYSIS OF THE FORCES ACTING1

ON SLICE 5
FIG. 3 CIRCULAR ARC METHOD ( METHOD .OF SLICES)

C-2.2 Arithmetical Method - The total weight W of the slice of width

b is equal to the areas ofthe various zones included in the slice multiplied
by their respective appropriate unit weights ( soil plus water ). This acts
vertically downwards through the centre of gravity of the slice. The two
components of this weight W, namely, the force normal to the arc of the
slice N = W cos CA and the force tangential to the arc of the slice
T = W sin CI are determined after resolving weight W in the radial and
tangential direction, M being the angle made by the radius of failure surface
with the vertical at the centre of the slice. In the total stress method of
analysis the test results ~include the influence of pore water pressure and
hence they riced not be accounted for separately in the analysis. However,
in the analysis by the effective stress method allowance for pore pressure
shall be made separately. The pore water pressure U acting on the arc

21
 IS : 7894 - 1975
of the slice results in an uplift force which reduces the normal component
of the weight of the slice, The net or effective downward force acting on
the curved bottom boundary of the slice is the total weight minus the
upward force due to pore water pressure. The effect of the pore prasure
on resisting forces is accounted for by assuming buoyant weight of the
material lymg below the phreatic line. Component of shearing resistance
due to internal friction is therefore ( N - U) tan 4, where 4 is the angle
of shearing resistance of the material at the base of the slice and ( N - U )
is the effective normal load fla. Another force acting at the bottom of
the slice and which opposes the movement of sliding mass is the shearing
resistance offered by the material due to its cohesion, C, and is equal to the
unit cohesion, c, multiplied by the length of the bottom of the slice and
is approximately equal to c x bjcos a. In practice the length of the arc
may be measured accurately as the expression blcos a shall not give the
length of arc of the slice when b is not infinitely small. The total resisting
or stabilizing force S developed at the bottom of the slice is equal to
(CX b/cosa)+ (N- U) tan &. The driving or the actuating force I
due to the weight of the slice is equal to W sin a. Similar forces are worked
out for all the slices considered for a potential failure surface. The results
of these computations shall be tabulated and sums of the resisting and
driving forces shall be obtained. The factor of safety against sliding for the
assumed failure surface is computed by the equation:
.
,5~_=~[C+(Jf- u)tan+l
zl- ZW sin a

where
FS = factor of safety,

S = resting or stabilizing force,

T = driving or actuating force,
h
c=cx Cosa’
N - force normal to the arc of slice,

XJ = pore water pressure,

~4 - angle of shearing resistance,

W = weight of the slice,
a = angle made by the radius of the failure surface with
the vertical at the centre of slice,

c = unit cohesion, and

b = width of slice.

22
 is : 7894 - 1975
C-2.3 Graphical Method -The summations of the resisting and driving
forces may be done by graphical method and may be adopted in preference
to the arithmetical method described at C-2.2. Any vertical line within
sliding mass from the outer slope of the dam to the bottom offailure surface
represents weight of strip or slice infinitely small in width. This is resolved
into two components, one normal to the failure surface .N and other
tangential to it T. These components for other various vertical slices
selected within the failure are plotted separately on two horizontal base
lines after projecting the verticals of the failure surface on the base lines.
The extremities of these normal and tangential components are then joined
by smooth and continuous curves. The areas under these curves represent
the summation of the normal and tangential forces acting on the failure
surface. The areas for various zones are planimetered and multiplied by
the respective unit weights of the material. In order to account for the
effect of the pore pressure, the normal forces shall be worked out on the
basis of effective unit weights. The summation of normal forces when
multiplied by the respective tangent of angle of internal friction along with
addition of cohesion gives the total resisting force. The summation of
tangential forces gives total driving force. The factor of safety shall then
be calculated as given in C-2.2.

C-2.4 Typical calculations for working out the factor of safety of

downstream slope for a condition of steady seepage as given by arithmetical
method ( see C-2.2 ) are given in Tables 1, 2 and 3 and Fig. 4 while those
by graphical method ( see C-2.3) are given in Tables 4, 5 and 6 and Fig. 5.
The final results of the computations by both the methods are practically
the same.

TABLE 1 ADOPTED DESIGN DATA

ZONE R = STRENGTH UNIT WEIGHT, t/m3

~______*~-_~ C----*_
c, t/m2 tan ql Moist r-.5merged

Shell 0 0’55 2.05 - -

Core 2.0 0.35 1.76 0.905 t.905

Foundation 1.9 0’43 0.744 -

23
 &
TABLE 2 CALCULATIONS FOR AREA OF SLICES

( Clause C-2.4)
*
SLICE HORI- SHELLABOVE COREABOVE COREBELOW FOVNDATSON I
ZONTAL PHREATIC LINE PHREATIC LINE PHREATICLINE
WIDTH __-_*--~~-_-_h_-~~---_--rr -~------r.
Height of Slice Area Height of Slice Area. Height of Slice Area‘. Height ofSlice A& u,
r_---h_-_~ ~--~h__~ C---_h--y C-_-__h--y
Left Right Avg Left Right Avg Left Right Avg Left Right Avg

(11 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)
m m m m ,2 m m m ma m m m m2 m m m m*

1 1.55 0.0 4.0 2.0 3.10 - - - - - -

z 3.75 4.0 2.0 3.0 11.25 0 3.25 1.62 6.07 0 3.50 1.75 6.56

3 3.75 2.0 4.0 3.0 11.25 3.25 4.50 3.87 14.51 3.50 5.50 4.50 16.87
2
4 4.50 &O 6’0 5.0 22’50 4.50 2.75 3.62 16.29 5.50 7.50 6.50 29.25
5 4.25 6.0 8.5 7.25 30.81 2.75 1.50 2.12 9.01 7.50 8.50 8.0 3400 - - - -
6 3.25 8.5 10.0 9.25 30.06 1.50 0.0 0.75 2.43 8.50 6.50 7.50 3437 0.0 2.0 1.0 3.25
7 6.75 10.0 3.5 1 l-75 79.31 - - - - 6.50 0 3.25 21.93 2.0 6.0 4.0 27.00
8 6.00 13.5 13.5 13.5 81.00 - - - - - - - 6.0 8.0 7.0 42.00
9 9.00 13.5 10.5 12.0 108.00 - - - 8.0 10.25 9.12 82.08

‘10 8.00 10.5 8.0 9.25 74.00 - - - 10.25 11.0 10.62 84.96
11 7.75 8.0 5.5 6.75 52.31 - - - - - - 11.0 10’5 10.75 83.31
12 7.00 5.5 3.0 4.25 29’75 - - - - - 10.5 90 9.75 68.25
13 7’00 3.0 0.0 1.50 10.5 - -. - 9.0 6.5 7.75 5425
14 11.00 - - - - - - - 6.5 0.0 3.25 35.75
 TA8LE 3 COMPUTATIC#S FOR NEUSTING AND DRIVING FORGES
(c&we c-2.4)

Portion A$ BC CD TOTAL
#------- . ---
Slice 14 -
f she11 f Above 3*ll
- 11:5
6.07 Ha,5
1451 22:o
16.29 30%1
9.01 SO&
2.43 7915
_ 1 81.800
- 108sO
- 7:zO
-
5?31
-
2:?75
-
ltE0
-
-
7
I phreatic
Area of Various
I line
$e=,” the I core 4
, I I I Below - 6.56 16.87 29.25 34.00 2437 21.93 - - - - -

I
1 Foundation
EEeafic
- - - - - 3.25 27.00 42’00 82.08 84.96 83.31 68.25 54.25 35-75

6.35 23.06 23.06 46’12 63’16 61.62 162.58 166’05 221.40 151.70 10723 60.98 21.52 -
Above - IO.68 25.53 28.67 15.85 4.27 - 7 - - - - -

I phreatic
line

Below
phreatic
5.93 15.26 26-47 30.77 22.05 1984 - - - __ - -

i line - - - - - 26.59
2.41 20.08 31.24 61.06 63.21 61.98 50.77 40.36

Total Weight of Slice 6.35 39.67 63.85 101.26 109.78 90.35 202.50 197.29 282’46 241.91 16921 Ill*“5 61.88 26.59
(WR)

Shell 23.06 23.06 46.12 63.16 6::; 162.58 166.05 221.40 151’70 107.23 60.98 21.52 -
6.35
- 10.68 25.53 28.67 - - - - - -
f Above 1985
phreatic
1
line
5. Weight for ’ Core i - - - - -
Dlivink Below - 1240 32’13 55.72 64:77 46.42 41.77 - -
1
Forces, t plueatic
i I line
- - - - - 2.41 ?ma 31.24 61.98 50.77 4.36 26.59
Foundation 61.05 6021
I 26.59
1Total Weight of Slice 695 46.23 80.72 130.51 143.78 174.72 224.43 197.29 282’46 214.91 169.21 Ill.75 61.88
1 (WD)
a, degree 66 60 53.30 47 40 35 29 22’30 13 4.30 4.30 12.30 31.00
!: cosa 0.594 0.682 0.819 0.874 0.923 0.996 0,996 @976 0.857

t : %eke Normal Force ( Ne )

8% X:% 0.803
37.92
0.731 “0% 0.573
7399
0484
176.98
0.382
182.09
Xt
- :‘:
275.11
0’078
214.05
0.078
168.53
0’216
109’06
0.515
22.78
2.57 19.83 69.05 84.09
- WR. coa a,t
Driving Force (T ) = WD. sin a, t 5.79 39.59 64.81 95.40 9230 65.73 108.62 75.36 63.55 16.76 - 13.19 -2413 -21.16 - 13.69
:: X Ne 2.57 2 10.89
12: ‘E%Z 555.74
!iT 5.79 292.10
0.55 0.35 0.45
::: $?+I!.
tan t$, t
r Unit Co+sion, c
1.41 73.81
2.0
576.31
1.9
651.53

15. Cohesion, C ( Length of Arc, L 9 25

I, c.L 0 50.0 &Ml 184.90

Total Resisting Force = 651.53 + 18490 = 836.43 t

Factor of safety sEE_ I 1.505

555.74
As in the Original Standard, this Page is Intentionally Left Blank
 (3Wd33c;ACW3LS) aOHL3JAJ lVDI&A?VNf7
A8 3dO?SJYV3XUSNMO(-J ~OdSNOI~V'IfWIV~ -IVDIdAJ, f '01~
.sa.uaur
u: suopxamp l[V
CIOHEIW 3tlV tJVlfl3t113
00.6OL 13h3-l MD08
33wins 3tlniwd a3wnssv T
NOllVClNllOj 113HS SnOlAtl3d
tt3amm3ho 190s
113HS SnOlhkl3d
OE.67L 3803 JO d01
OC.LCiLtit'CiJO d01
33vjans 3mlivd
a3wnssv 90 3~1~33-.'~
 TABLE 4 APTED DESIGN DATA
(Clause C-2.4 )

ZONE R STRENGTH UNIT WEIGHT, t/m3

#---‘-*_-7 r----- h-__--7
c, t/ma tan I$ Moist Sub- Satu-
merged rated
Shell 0 0.55 2.05
(Dry) -
Core 2.0 0.35 1’76 Cl.905 !$$Q5
Foundation 1.9 0.45 0744 -

TABLE 5 COMPUTATIONS FOR RESISTING FORCES

( ClauseC-2.4)

POR- ZONE AREA OF ZONE UNIT NORMAL TOTAL tari @ Ne. COHESION, c
TION
r___h-_y WEIGHT FORCE NORMAL tan ---h-y
cm2 m2 ( EFFEC- FORCE @ Unit Length Cohe-
TIVE ) (Ne) Cohe- of sion
( EFFEC- sion Arc c.L,
TIVE) (c) !L) t
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 00) (11) (12)
AB Shell above phreatic line 0.05 1.25 2.05 2.56 2.56 0.55 1.40 0 4 0.00
BC Core below phreatic line 2.38 59.50 0.905 53.84
Core above phreatic 1inC 1.25 31.25 1.76 55 00
Shell above phreatic line 2.05 51.25 2.05 105,06 213.90 0.35 74.86 2-O 25 50.00
CD Foundation 18.50 462.50 0.744 344.10
Core below phreatic line 1.55 38.75 @905 35.07
Core above phreatic line 0.08 2.00 1.76 3.52
Shell above phreatic line 17.55 438.75 2.05 899.43 1282.12 0.45 576.95 1.9 71 134.90

Total 653.2 1 184.90

Total Resisting Force = 653.21 + 184.90
= 838.11 t
.
 I8 : 7894 - 1975

DRIVING FORCE DIAGRAM

I TANGENTIAL FORCE)

o-05

D
tan 9 =

NORMAL FORCE DIAGRAM

CENTRE OF ASSUME0
FAILURE SURFACE
TOP OF DAM 751.3

TOP OF CORE ?L+3

SOFT OVERBURDEN
FOUNDATION
LASSUMEO FAILURE SURFACE
ROCK LEVEL 709-00
I
CIRCULAR ARC METHOD
All dimaIaiona in metrc8.
FIG. 5 TYPICAL CALCULATIONS
FORDOWNSTREAM
SLOPEBY GRAPHICALMETHOD ( STEADYSEEPAGE)

29
As in the Original Standard, this Page is Intentionally Left Blank
 IS : 7894 - 1975

TABLE 6 COMPUTATIONS FOR DRIVING FORCES

( Clause C-2.4 )

AREA OF ZONE UNIT DRIVING

ZONE WEIGHT ,p+ORCE
-----x
cm2 t/m8
(1) (2) (3) (4) (j,
Shell above phreatic line ( 7.0~W55 ) 6’45 161.25 Z-05 330.56
Core above phreatic line 1.45 36.25 1-76 63.80
Core below phreatic line 3’40 85.00 l-905 161.92
_ ^^ ^ _._ _ .-
Foundation ( 2-24-2.22 j -Uo'U8 -p&j 0’744 -1’48

Total = 554*80t
838.11
Factor of Safety = ~54~~ - 1.51

APPENDIX D
( Clause 7.3.2)
PROCEDURE FOR ANALYSIS OF FORCES BY SLIDING
WEDGE METHOD

D-l. NOTATIONS
D-l.1 For the purpose of this appendix the following notations shall have
the meaning indicated after each:
C = total cohesive force,
CA = developed cohesive force of active wedge,
ccs = developed cohesive force of central block,
CD = developed cohesive force,
Cr = developed cohesive force of passive wedge,
EA =’ resultant force of active wedge,
EP = resultant force of passive wedge,
&, EH = force required to close the force polygon,
FA = resultant of normal and frictional force of active wedge,
FCB = resultant of normal and frictional force of central block,
r;, = resultant of normal and frictional force of passive wedge,
A-D = developed normal force,
SD = developed shear strength = CD + ( ND - U) tan 40,
U = pore water pressure,
WA = total weight of active wedge,

31

6
rs : 7894 - 1975

Wca = total weight of central block,

Wp = total weight of passive wedge,
+ = angle of internal friction, and
+D = developed angle of internal friction required for equilibrium.

D-2. ANALYSIS

D-2.1 An arbitrary failure surface A, B, C, D in Fig. 6 is chosen for analy-

sis. Vertical boundaries are assumed between the central block and active
and passive wedge.

FIG. 6 EMBANKMENT SECTION SHOWING WEDGES

D-2.2 The total weight W of the segment is equal to the area multiplied
by the appropriate gross unit weight of the material. It is assumed that
the shear strength developed at the bottom of wedge is equal to
&‘D=CD + (ND- U) tan+DwhereCD =-&,tan+D=.tG~, and
.
FS is a trial factor of safety. ND is the normal force acting on the bottom
when the wedge is at a state of equilibrium and not at failure. The forces
on each segment are considered separately. The developed values of
cohesion, CD, and developed angle of internal friction, 40, along the failure
surface are controlled by the assm,led trial factor of safety. The magni-
tude of resultant earth forces E;\ and B,, also depend on the value of trial
factor of safety. Wowever, tllc direction of forces acting on the vertical
boundaries must be assumed. If .he vertical boundary between the active
wedge -and the central block or pasive wedge is located at or below the
centre of embankment slope, the direction of the force EA is assumed to be

32
 IS : 7894 - 1975

parallel to the slope. If the vertical boundary is located near the top of
the embankment slope horizontal direction for EA should be assumed. For
a vertical boundary between the centre and top of the slope, an interme-
diate angle may be selected. The direction of the force EP in the vertical
boundary between the passive wedge and the central block should be
assumed parallel to the outer embankment slope if the boundary is located
near the centre of the slope. If it is located at or near the toe of the slope
the direction of Ep should be assumed as horizontal. The resultant
forces acting at -the vertical boundaries of the active and passive wedges
are determined by constructing force polygon was shown in Fig. 7 and 8.
These forces are finally incorporated in the force polygon for the central
block ( see Fig. 9 ).

FIG. 7 FORCE POLYGONFORACTIVEWEDGE

EP

WP PP
9 o”
$0
<
V
CP

FIG. 8 FORCEPOLYGONFOR PASSIVEWEDGE

33
I?3 : 7894 - 1975

CB

FIG.9 FORCE POLYGON FOR CENTRAL BLOCK

34
 IS x7894 - 197s

D-2.3 A condition of equilibrium will generally not be obtained on first

trial and several trial analysis with different factors necessary to close the
polygon ( se6 Fig. 9 ) is denoted by AEH.
D-2.4 The force c\EH is assumed to act horizontally and its magnitude and
sign vary with the trial value of factor of safety. A plot is made of AEH
versusthe trial values of factor of safety as shown in Fig. 10 to determine the
value of factor of safety for which A EH is zero. This factor of safety _is
required to balance the forces for the sliding surface being analysed.
Various trial locations of the active and passive wedges are required to
-determine the minimum value of factor of safety.
FACTOR OF SAFETY
FOR EQUILIBRIUM

TRIAL FACTOR
OF SAFETY
FIG. 10 TRUL FACTOROF SAPETYverm AEH

APPENDIX E
( CZause8.1 j
ANALYSIS FOR EARTHQUARE CONDITION BY CIRL;CJLAR
ARC METHOII

El. GENERAL
El.1 Earthquake forces acting on typical slices of a homogenous dam, one
located on the right side and other located on left of the ‘centre of circle of
upstream failure surface are shown in Fig. 2. The tangential compo-
nents of these earthquake forces for all the slices act in the direction of the
slide and thus they aggravate the failure. This force shall be added to the

35
IS : 7894 - 1975

driving forces as worked out in Appendix C, for reservoir operating

conditions to get total driving force for earthquake condition. Similarly the
overall effect of the normal components of the earthquake forces over a
sliding mass is to reduce the normal force worked out for the reservoir
operating condition ( without earthquake ).
E-2. ANALYSIS
E-2.1 The factor of safety for earthquake condition shall be worked out
from the following formula:

FS =
2-rc +(Jv --lJ)tan+]- Z(Wlsinatan#XAH)
Z W siu ‘x + CIYlcosPiAH-
where
FS = factor of safety;
f?
v- - c-nh,=.;w=
I”...,“..” w..;ctmvc
*_.“-...a”_ nf
“1 the
..S” cli~w
Y.-Y”,
.N = force normal to the arc of slice;
U = pore water pressure;
( .JV-U) = e&Je;~~ normal force acting on the failure surface,
.
4 = angle of’ internal friction;
Wl = saturated weight of the slice if it is below phreatic
line and moist weights ( or drained weights, if it is
freely draining ) if it is above it;
a = angle between the centre of the slice and radius of
failure surface;
AH - horizontal seismic coefficient; and
W e= weight ~ofthe slice considered for driving force.

APPENDLx F
( Clause 8.1 )
ANALYSIS FOR EARTHQUAKE CONDITION BY
SLIDING WEDGE METHOD
F-1. ASSUMPTXONS
F-l.1 For illustrating a typical example of calculations earthquake forces
have been assumed to be of magnitude 0.1 g, that is, 10 percent of the
weight and acting in the direction of slide.
F-2. NOTATIONS
F-2.1 In addition to the notations given in Appendix D, the following
notations shall have the meaning shown against them:
FhA = horizontal~earthquake force due to weight of active wedge,
FhcB = horizontal earthquake force due to weight of central block, and
Fhp ~3 horizontal earthquake force due to weight of passive wedge.

36

L
 IS : 7894 - 1975

F-3. ANALYSIS

F-3.1 The slope shall he analysed in accordance with the procedure

prescribed in Appendix D incorporating the earthquake forces at relevant
places. Typical example is illustrated in Fig. 11 to 15.

ACTIVE WEDGE
CENTRAL BLOCK

PASSIVE

FIG. 11 DAM SECTION SHOWING WEDGES AND EARTHQUAKE FORCES

FIG. 12 FORCE POLYGON- FIG. 13 FORCE POLYGON-

ACTIVE WEDGE PASSIVE WEDGE

37
IS : 7894 - 1975

FhCB

FIG.14 FORCEPOLYGON CENTRALBLOCK

 IS : 7894 - 1975

r FACTOR OF SAFETY
EQUILIBRIUM
FOR

1-o 1.2 l*L

TRIAL FACTOR OF
SAFETY

FIG. 15 TRIAL FACTOR OF SAFETY versus AEH

39
BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

Ham&pa&m
Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, NEW DELHI 110002
Telephones: 323 0131, 323 3375, 323 9402
Fax:91113234062, 91113239399, 91113239362
Telegrams : Manaksanstha
(Common to all Offices)
Central Laboratory: Tefephcne
Plot No. 20/9, Site IV, Sahibabad industrial Area, SAHIBABAD 201010 8770032
Regional OtVces:
Central : Manak Bhavan. 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, NEW DELHI 110002 323 76 17
*Eastern : 1114 CIT Scheme VII M, V.I.P. Road, Maniktola, CALCUTTA700054 337 86 62
Northern : SC0 335336, Sector 34-A, CHANDIGARH 160022 60 38 43
Southern 1C;.I.T.Campus, IV Cross Road, CHENNAI 600113 235 23 15
TWestern : hkmakalaya. E9 Behind Mar01 Telephone Exchange, Andheri (East), 832 92 95
MUMBAI 400093

Branch Offkes:
‘Pushpak’, Nurmohamed Shaikh Marg, Khanpur, AHMEDABAD 380001 550 13 48
$Peenya tndusbial Area, 1 st Stage, Bangatore - Tumkur Road, 839 49 55
BANGALORE 560058
Gangotri Complex, 5th Floor, Bhadbhada Road, T. T. Nagar, BHOPAL 462003 55 40 21
Plot No. 62-63. Unit VI. Ganga Nagar, BHUBANESHWAR 751001 40 36 27
Kaiaikathir Buildings, 670 Avinashi Road, COIMBATORE 641037 21 01 41
Plot No. 43, Sector 16 A, Mathura Road, FARIDABAD 121001 8-28 88 01
Savitri Complex, 116 G. T. Road, GHAZIABAD 201001 8-71 19 96
5315 Ward No. 29, R. G. Barua Road, 5th By-lane, GUWAHATI 781003 54 11 37
58-58C. L. N. Gupta Marg, Nampally Station Road, HYDERABAD 500001 20 10 83
E-52, Chitaranjan Marg, C-Scheme, JAIPUR 302001 37 29 25
1171418 B. Sarvodaya Nagar. KANPUR 208005 21 6876
Seth Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Behind Leela Cinema, Naval Kishore Road, 23 89 23
LUCKNOW 226001
Patfiputra Industrial ‘Estate, PATNA 800013 26 23 05
T. C. No. 1411421, University P. 0. Palayam, 6 21 17
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695034
NIT Building. Second Floor, Gokulpat Market, NAGPUR 440010 52 51 71
Institution of Engineers ( India ) Building, 1332 Shivaji Nagar, PUNE 411005 32 36 35

‘Safes Office is at 5 Chowringhee Approach, P 0. Princep Street,

CALCUTTA 700072 ,27 10 85
TSales Office is at Novelty Chambers, Grant Road, MUMBAI 400007 309 65 28
*Sales Office is at ‘F’ Block, Unity Building, Narashimaraja Square, 222 39 71
BANGALORE 560002

Printed at New India Printing Press, Khurja. India